Quote:

I've now written a lot. Nobody will probably read this far. Too bad, I guess.

wrong! i guess i read it, and the article, and what i've read is reply-inducing.

aside: a "how-to-present-a-game"-thread could be useful! at the risk of being declared a cross-poster, i'll start one and quote myself (gee that makes me sound proud) and see what others think.

having a generally-agreed-upon sticky in the showcase forum might be useful too (or appended to the end of the current guidelines).

how old is Phoenix Wright? i haven't played it, but i think i've only heard good things about it.

back (again) to the thread's point -- that article you posted (which is ever-so-relevant and to this topic) is really interesting. despite being common sense, being reminded of the basic idea of a "feedback loop" is somewhat inspiring; it is often dangerous in a game to experiment without being concerned about death. if a game provides loose rules and a more open environment, the player can try things out without fearing death and without being concerned about the strict rules that many game-objectives tend to have. if the player receives more interactive feedback about what they do, a game would be much more enjoyable. this is a somewhat generalised comment but it's a broad topic.

Quote:

A key aspect of our model is that games actively encourage learning. I can put a black box on the table with a hidden button. Unbeknownst to a potential user, pressing the button enough times and the black box will spew out a thousand shiny silver coins. This is not a game. This is a bizarre gizmo.

i like this. i like the idea of being an "infovore", and when i read this i immediately made links to the "Transformers" game on xbox360 (no, i don't have one, but my mate does). the game sucks. it isn't much fun. and why is that? it is completely mindless. having not seen the movie, i enjoyed the cutscenes, but they were the only incentive to keep playing. the rules are strict, almost everything has a time-limit, and this only served to frustrate me. and all this for a game with three different types of missions: chase something, kill something, and chase something while killing it. there is very, very little thought involved. (at this point i must admit that i'm a huge "Serious Sam" 1&2 fan, and they are very thoughtless games, but they are humourous and very visually appealing, as well as being loaded with secrets that reward wondering minds).

Quote:

In Monkeyball, researchers were astounded to find the the biggest jolt of pleasured occurred when you fell off a cliff and died. People loved it! If you look at falling off the cliff as a huge learning experience, this makes perfect sense. However, when they replayed the animation, people hated it. Same stimulus, radically different response. The animation of falling off cliff lost its ability to teach the second time around. Ultimately, users are subconsciously constantly asking the question “Is this activity worth my time? Does it gain me anything useful?”

i particularly enjoyed this paragraph as well (despite the author's written english being somewhat lacking, his points come across well). this directly attacks the issue of repetition, and i really don't have any more to say about it.

Quote:

This definition of game design is much broader than the current range of games available on the market.

obviously this is a very important point for us game designers/developers.

anyway, that's saved in my favourites now.

good find, Error!
anyone reading this thread should have a look at the article, which can be found in Error014's last post.

julz

Formerly known as JulzMighty.
I made KarBOOM!